An Artificial Brain

[LucidFlanders]

http://online.wsj.com/video/scientis...912D85C81.html This would be intresting. A brain inside a computer? They will soon take over the world.

[metcalfracing]

things like that make me want to change my major...

[Invader]

My idea.

[Xei]

I'm considering working for these people... I'm getting a degree in mathematics and a master's in neuroscience because this is exactly the kind of thing I'm interested in.

[Bonsay]

Poor virtual person, when they make the actual brain. They should give it eyes and ears. He could be the actual example of the brain in a vat.

[Xei]

It's extremely philosophically interesting; would it be conscious? It divides many people, but I think that it certainly would be. My argument is that there is obviously nothing inherently conscious about the material that constitutes the neural network (biological molecules as opposed to silicon).

[Bonsay]

Yes. If I may go further with this. What's so inherently special about neural or silicon based networks that creates consciousness? They are just interacting systems. What gives me or some other animal the specific subjective experience is the relation between our sensory organs and complex neural structures. What I'm aiming at - is it possible that the motion and interaction of macroscopic objects, some simplistic communication between bacteria, or even motion of water molecules creates some sort of a consciousness. Is it in a sense possible, that with our social interaction (for example), we create a new global consciousness? Is the idea that a group of people interacting creates some sort of a virtual entity too far fetched to consider? If it is, then why? (Pointing back at the lack of any inherent characteristic to a neuron that would imply it's uniqueness in spawning a consciousness, for example.)

[LucidFlanders]

It's extremely philosophically interesting; would it be conscious? It divides many people, but I think that it certainly would be. My argument is that there is obviously nothing inherently conscious about the material that constitutes the neural network (biological molecules as opposed to silicon). The guy said Blue Brain is starting to do things it is not programmed to do, so maybe in 10 years it will be fully conscious. I wonder if they would be able to dream?

[Xei]

Yes. If I may go further with this. What's so inherently special about neural or silicon based networks that creates consciousness? They are just interacting systems. What gives me or some other animal the specific subjective experience is the relation between our sensory organs and complex neural structures. What I'm aiming at - is it possible that the motion and interaction of macroscopic objects, some simplistic communication between bacteria, or even motion of water molecules creates some sort of a consciousness. Is it in a sense possible, that with our social interaction (for example), we create a new global consciousness? Is the idea that a group of people interacting creates some sort of a virtual entity too far fetched to consider? If it is, then why? (Pointing back at the lack of any inherent characteristic to a neuron that would imply it's uniqueness in spawning a consciousness, for example.) My argument against this proposition is a mathematical one; the number of systems outnumbers the number of brains by a very large factor. Given the axiom that there is no bias to 'being' any particular conscious system, then the proposition seems unlikely, because you would not expect to be in the extreme minority which is human brains; however, we are. It seems more likely to me that only certain systems are capable of consciousness. What is special about those systems I do not know, but perhaps we will work it out when we crack the neural code.

[Black_Eagle]

Certainly these brains wouldn't be able to change over time like a real brain though, would it? Really makes me wonder with my limited teenage understanding of neuroscience. Cool stuff, thanks for the post. Maybe our time really is the rise of AI.

[Xei]

Certainly these brains wouldn't be able to change over time like a real brain though, would it? It's a complete simulation of a brain. They created models of how neurons work (apparently they all function extremely similarly) and then mapped them out as the occur in the neocortical columns. There's no reason to think they shouldn't change, to my knowledge.

[khh]

That's not really an artificial brain, though is it? I'd rather say it's a simulation of a brain. An artificial one would be if you made one.

[Xei]

Artificial only means man-made. And they are making it. Superficially it may not look much like a brain but silicon is just as much a physical embodiment as any other.

[Universal Mind]

None of you have even mentioned God. You are all sinners! Consciousness is one of the major areas that science has not come even close to explaining. We know its extreme correlation with the brain's activity and specific areas of the brain, but we are clueless on what the connection is. Until we know in great detail what that connection is, we will not be able to create artificial consciousness. On the other hand, if consciousness is tied into the most basic fabric of reality itself (as Eastern philosophers and mystics believe), then calculators and microwave ovens are already conscious, as are rocks and atoms.

[Bonsay]

My argument against this proposition is a mathematical one; the number of systems outnumbers the number of brains by a very large factor. Given the axiom that there is no bias to 'being' any particular conscious system, then the proposition seems unlikely, because you would not expect to be in the extreme minority which is human brains; however, we are. It seems more likely to me that only certain systems are capable of consciousness. What is special about those systems I do not know, but perhaps we will work it out when we crack the neural code. Ok, if I understand correctly - then is it not also true that in some classical deterministic model of the universe every conscious systems might not be recognizable by only one version? For example we might only detect the entities which are based on the same systems, due to our "biased" brain structure which only recognizes specific ones. This emergent characteristic could easily be ascribed to some evolutionary process or the fact that we (animals) are related. Of course we could then project the only way we perceive consciousness further, like creating AI. It would only appear to us that we are in a minority. When we look objectively, even if many try to fight this, the brain from which we arise falls under the same laws as everything else. I feel free, but I might just be as free as a rock flying through space. I don't really have the authority to say that the universe is deterministic, but if it is, there is nothing stopping my lamp from being "conscious". If I really simplify it all, It might reason with it's "free will" by deciding to stay still. The funny thing is that there is no way to prove it, since free will in determinism doesn't mean anything objectively. Just throwing out my ideas. What do you think? Until we know in great detail what that connection is, we will not be able to create artificial consciousness. We might not be able to agree on it's existence (not knowing the nature of consciousness), but I'm pretty sure we'll create it.

[khh]

Artificial only means man-made. And they are making it. Superficially it may not look much like a brain but silicon is just as much a physical embodiment as any other. So, are they actually putting together a neuron grid made of silicon? If so, then it's an artificial brain. But if they're just programming a simulation, no matter how life like, they've just simulated it. They haven't made it.

[Xei]

What's a 'simulation'..? Simulations do not have some kind of ethereal existence. A simulation is made of transistors and electrons and silicon and is every bit as physical as a brain. It's just mapped out differently in space.

[Xaqaria]

My argument against this proposition is a mathematical one; the number of systems outnumbers the number of brains by a very large factor. Given the axiom that there is no bias to 'being' any particular conscious system, then the proposition seems unlikely, because you would not expect to be in the extreme minority which is human brains; however, we are. It seems more likely to me that only certain systems are capable of consciousness. What is special about those systems I do not know, but perhaps we will work it out when we crack the neural code. Your poor usage of statistics to bolster your point of view is disturbing, Xei. The only reason why you feel we are in a minority is on account of your subjective classification. There is no reason why "human brain" should be considered a seperate system from "biological life", "carbon-based molecular structures", or even "matter". Not only that, whether or not the system "human brain" is a minority among total number of discrete systems across the universe has no bearing on the existence of consciousness in any of the systems in question. Even under your assumption that only certain systems are capable of consciousness, without knowing any of the criteria for being conscious, you can't know whether we are even in a minority at all.

[Xei]

There is no reason why "human brain" should be considered a seperate system from "biological life", "carbon-based molecular structures", or even "matter". Yes there is: because we have a separate consciousness from all of those things. Not only that, whether or not the system "human brain" is a minority among total number of discrete systems across the universe has no bearing on the existence of consciousness in any of the systems in question. Can't make head or tail of this. Even under your assumption that only certain systems are capable of consciousness, without knowing any of the criteria for being conscious, you can't know whether we are even in a minority at all. That wasn't the proposition, was it..? The proposition involved things such as bacteria being conscious. My argument is that as there are 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bacteria on Earth and only 6,000,000,000 humans, it is extremely unlikely that we should happen to be humans given that both sets of organisms are conscious. It is also inherently obvious to me. Brains are unique objects capable of doing unique things, such as problem solving, self awareness, discussing consciousness even. The fact that I am conscious and I am a brain is strongly suggestive that the two are interlinked.

[Bonsay]

That's right, but as far as probability goes, you could say the same about Earth, or you happening to exist after all - it being small. I agree with you. Consciousness does seem to emerge out of various, interlinked, more primitive computational systems. As I said before, I was just philosophizing, bordering on some new age mysticism .

[Xei]

The thing I'm referring to actually has quite large implications. I'm not sure if any philosopher has come up with it before. Basically it acts on the axiom that you are a random conscious system. If there are multiverses, this helps to solve the fine tuning problem, because you'd only expect to be in the fine tuning ones. It also explains why the universe is so vast and life appears to arise so readily; if you are a random element in a set of sets, you expect to be in one of the largest sets; in this case, you expect to be in one of the universes with a very large number of conscious beings, which for our universe seems to be superficially true.

[Bonsay]

I'm getting a bit lost. What do you mean by random conscious system? The point is we arise from material systems, right? In a multiverse one universe has specific laws and that is where a set of specific consciousness's arise due to some sort of arising complexity of interacting elements (like with evolution that eventually made us and where we continue from). Only existing in fine tuned ones goes without saying, from our current point of view anyway. Am I getting this right?

[Xei]

I'm getting a bit lost. What do you mean by random conscious system? Simply that there is nothing 'special' about you. Your consciousness was just as likely to be that of your current body as somebody else's. The point is we arise from material systems, right? In a multiverse one universe has specific laws and that is where a set of specific consciousness's arise due to some sort of arising complexity of interacting elements (like with evolution that eventually made us and where we continue from). Only existing in fine tuned ones goes without saying, from our current point of view anyway. Am I getting this right? Yes. It's just that crucial to that argument is the axiom of random consciousness, which implies (in extremely convoluted terms - it is hard to put this in words) that 'before' you became conscious, you were not 'in' any universe. We have to view the multiverse as a set of systems with no boundaries between them, rather than many sets of systems (some of them empty) and you having to end up in one set which is 'yours'.

[khh]

Simply that there is nothing 'special' about you. Your consciousness was just as likely to be that of your current body as somebody else's. That's not true. You consciousness is linked with your body, and the sense impressions it gets.

[Xei]

You've misunderstood, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that it's just as likely that your consciousness was going to be linked with your body as another's.